There are moments in international politics when subtlety disappears. The early weeks
of 2026 mark one of those moments for Latin America.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has not introduced a new vision for the
region, but it has removed any remaining ambiguity. The United States, under Trump, is no longer attempting to manage influence quietly.
It is openly reasserting power.
The U.S.-led operation that resulted in the removal of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela set
the tone. It was swift, unilateral, and justified after the fact. The Trump administration framed it as a necessary step to restore order and security, particularly in relation to migration flows, organized crime, and energy stability. The message was not subtle:
Washington will act first and explain later.
For Latin America, this moment feels familiar and unsettling at the same time. It recalls an older logic of hemispheric politics, one in which sovereignty is tolerated as long as it aligns with U.S. interests. Trump has not formally revived the Monroe Doctrine, but his
actions reflect its core premise. The hemisphere remains, in his view, a strategic
backyard.
This approach extends beyond Venezuela. Trump’s recent remarks questioning the
relevance of the USMCA sent immediate signals to Mexico and Canada that trade
agreements, even recent ones, are not guarantees but tools. For Mexico in particular,
such uncertainty carries tangible consequences: market volatility, political pressure, and renewed dependence on Washington’s goodwill.
Across South America, governments are recalibrating. Brazil pursues pragmatic
engagement without full alignment. Argentina seeks predictability amid global
instability. Smaller economies, especially in Central America, face sharper choices.
Cooperation with Washington brings short-term stability; resistance risks economic and diplomatic isolation.
Migration remains Trump’s most effective instrument of leverage. Deportation policies
and border enforcement are not framed as shared regional challenges but as compliance mechanisms. Countries are expected to absorb the consequences quietly. Public dissent, when it occurs, is swiftly penalized.
What stands out is not only the assertiveness of U.S. policy, but the absence of a coordinated Latin American response. The region remains fragmented, responding individually to pressures that are clearly systemic. In that fragmentation, U.S. influence expands almost by default.
The economic effects are already visible.
Investor confidence fluctuates. Currencies
react sharply to political signals. Remittances, essential for millions of households, are increasingly vulnerable to political decisions made far from the communities they sustain.
